Philosophy of Science 101
In discussing the philosophy of science, philosophers generally focus on natural sciences like biology,
chemistry, astronomy, physics, and earth sciences, and examine the implications, assumptions, and
foundations that result from this science. Generally speaking, the criteria for science are:
1. The creation of hypotheses. These hypotheses must meet the logical criteria of contingency
(meaning logically speaking, they are not necessarily true or false) and falsifiability, (meaning
they have the ability to be proven false), and testability (meaning there are real chances that
the hypotheses could be established as true or false).
2. A grounding in empirical evidence
3. Use of the scientific method
The Demarcation Problem
According to philosopher Karl Popper, the central questions in the philosophy of science is known as the
demarcation problem. Put simply, the demarcation problem is how one can distinguish between science
and non–science (this question also deals with pseudo–science in particular). To this day, there is still not
a generally accepted account of the demarcation problem, and some even find it to be insignificant or find
it unsolvable. While logical positivists, who combined empiricism with logic, tried to ground science
observation and claimed that anything that is nonobservational is non–science (and meaningless). Popper
claimed that the main problem of science is falsifiability.
Philosophical Definition
Falsifiability: In order for a hypothesis to be accepted as true, and before any hypothesis can be accepted
as scientific theory or scientific hypothesis, it has to be disprovable.
In other words, for Popper, any scientific claim could be proven to be false. If, after extensive effort, no
such proof can be found, then it must mean that the claim is most likely true.
The Validity of Scientific Reasoning
Scientific reasoning can be grounded in many different ways to show that theories are valid.
Induction
It can be difficult for a scientist to state that a law is universally true because even if every test brings
back the same results, that does not necessarily mean that future tests will also have the same results. It is
for this reason that scientists use induction. According to inductive reasoning, if a situation holds true in
every observed case, then it holds true in all cases.
Empirical Verification
Scientific claims need evidence in order to back up theories or models. Therefore, the predictions and
models can make must be in agreement with the evidence that has already been observed (and
observations are ultimately results coming from the sense). Observations have to be agreed upon by
others and be repeatable, and predictions must be specific so that a scientist can falsify a theory or model
(which implies the prediction) with an observation.
The Duhem–Quine and Ockham’s Razor
The Duhem–Quine thesis states that it is not possible to test a theory or hypothesis in complete isolation
because in order for one to empirically test the hypothesis, one must involve other background
assumptions. A result of this thesis is the notion that any theory can have the ability to be compatible
with empirical information if enough ad hoc hypotheses are included. It is for that reason that Ockham’s
Razor (the notion that the simplest of explanations should be chosen among the competing theories) is
used in science. In agreeing with the Duhem–Quine thesis, Karl Popper shifted from favoring a naïve
falsification to favoring the theory that scientific theories should be falsifiable, meaning if a hypothesis
cannot create testable predictions, it is not considered science.
Theory Dependence
Basic observation can be interpreted in different ways based on an individual’s theories. For example,
while it is common knowledge today that the Earth rotates, earlier scientists believed the sun moved and
the Earth stayed still. Therefore, when an observation (which involves cognition and perception) is
interpreted by a theory, it is referred to as theory–laden. According to philosopher and physicist Thomas
Kuhn, it is impossible to isolate a hypothesis from the theories influence (which is grounded in
observation). Kuhn states that new paradigms (based on observations) are chosen when they do a better
job than other paradigms in explaining scientific problems.
Coherentism
According to coherentism, theories and statements can be justified as the result of being part of a coherent
system. This system can pertain to the beliefs of a particular scientist or to the scientific community.